The latest fundraising appeal on behalf of Kémi Séba is revealing.
His supporters are being told that extradition proceedings in South Africa could cost as much as US$100 000, or even US$250 000, and that they should contribute to his legal defence. Whether those figures are accurate or not, the underlying message is clear: political activism has reached the point where substantial financial resources are now required simply to contest the legal consequences.
But this is precisely what accountability looks like.
Every political leader, activist or public figure is free to express opinions and advocate for causes. What no one is free from, however, are the consequences of actions that authorities believe may have crossed into criminal conduct.
The allegations against Séba originate from Benin, a sovereign democratic state seeking his extradition through legal channels. South African courts are not deciding whether he is guilty; they are deciding whether the legal requirements for extradition have been met. Those are very different questions.
The fundraising campaign frames the issue as a political struggle. Yet it also acknowledges something fundamental: legal processes are expensive because they involve constitutional rights, international law, multiple court appearances and judicial oversight. That is the cost of due process.
The appeal also invites perspective.
US$100 000 is approximately R1.8-million at current exchange rates. In South Africa, that amount could fund several university bursaries, purchase critical medical equipment for community clinics, or provide meaningful support to small businesses and community organisations.
It is a significant sum in a country where millions remain unemployed and many families struggle to meet basic needs.
In Benin, where GDP per capita is substantially lower than South Africa’s, US$100 000 represents an even larger economic commitment. It is equivalent to the average annual economic output of dozens of citizens. For ordinary Beninese supporters, contributing even US$10 may represent a meaningful personal sacrifice.
That raises an obvious question.
If a movement claims to represent ordinary Africans and the economically marginalised, should those same ordinary Africans now be expected to finance the legal consequences arising from the actions of its leader?
Questions the fundraising appeal cannot ignore
The fundraising appeal also raises important questions about transparency and credibility.
The video claims that legal representation in South Africa could cost between US$80 000 and US$250 000, before urging supporters to contribute. However, no evidence is presented to explain how these figures were calculated, whether they are based on quotations from legal representatives, or what work those costs are intended to cover. Extradition proceedings vary considerably in complexity and duration, making broad estimates difficult to verify without supporting information.
Supporters are therefore entitled to ask reasonable questions before opening their wallets. What exactly is the money for? How much has already been raised? Who will administer the funds? Will there be independent financial oversight? Will donors receive an accounting of how the money is spent?
These are not hostile questions—they are the minimum standards of transparency that should accompany any public fundraising campaign.
The appeal also appears difficult to reconcile with previous public messaging. In an earlier video, Hery Djehuty, an ardent Séba supporter, spoke confidently about Séba having influential and powerful supporters. If that is indeed the case, it is reasonable to ask why those supporters are not taking the lead in financing what is presented as an important legal battle.
If wealthy and influential backers exist, should the financial burden instead fall on ordinary supporters – many of whom live in countries facing significant economic hardship?
Across Africa, US$10 is not an insignificant amount. For many families, it represents a day’s wages or money that would otherwise go towards food, transport or school expenses. Asking thousands of ordinary people to fund an unverified legal budget without detailed financial disclosure invites scrutiny.
Ultimately, every individual is free to contribute if they wish. But before doing so, supporters should insist on transparency, accountability and clear evidence that the amounts requested are justified and will be managed responsibly.
Political leadership carries responsibility as well as influence. Decisions have consequences. Campaigns have consequences. International activism has consequences. When those consequences become legal proceedings, it is not governments or courts imposing an unfair burden by requiring legal representation. It is simply the predictable cost of defending one’s case within the rule of law.
Supporters are, of course, free to contribute if they choose. That is their right.
But they should do so with a clear understanding of what they are funding. They are not donating to a political campaign. They are funding a legal defence against extradition proceedings initiated through established judicial processes between two sovereign states.
There is an old principle that applies equally to politicians, activists and ordinary citizens alike: freedom includes responsibility. Actions have consequences, and accountability often comes with a price tag.
